Broccoli Dog Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I followed the better together twitter account to see if they could give me any reason to vote NO.Most of their tweets were about Salmond and scare mongering articles. Has anyone from BT said what extra powers Scotland will get if we vote NO? They've only recently conceded that they might offer further powers, but have not stated in any way what they are. Probably a cut in the block grant while allowing the SP to have some take from income tax. I doubt they would give away anything else than that, and whatever powers they do offer can be taken away whenever they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Out of interest, how is the Commonwealth Games being funded? As a Falkirkian, am I paying for any of it? My Team:Glasgow University You should be supporting your local team IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 They've only recently conceded that they might offer further powers, but have not stated in any way what they are. Probably a cut in the block grant while allowing the SP to have some take from income tax. I doubt they would give away anything else than that, and whatever powers they do offer can be taken away whenever they like. Several points. 1. It is already the case that, through the Scotland Act 2012, Westminster will, from 2016, give the Scottish Parliament control over a significant portion of income tax. 2. Not to cut the block grant by the commensurate amount would mean just giving Holyrood more money and more tax powers over the same pot of cash. How is cutting the block grant as the quid pro quo for more taxation control unacceptable? 3. They can't "take away" the Scottish Parliament's tax powers "whenever they like". Any amendment to the Scotland Act requires a Sewel Motion by way of consent from Holyrood and if they tried to do it by Order in Council that would require Holyrood consent too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Was Manchester not funded UK-wide in 2002, though? Better Together! I don't know was it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Several points. 1. It is already the case that, through the Scotland Act 2012, Westminster will, from 2016, give the Scottish Parliament control over a significant portion of income tax. 2. Not to cut the block grant by the commensurate amount would mean just giving Holyrood more money and more tax powers over the same pot of cash. How is cutting the block grant as the quid pro quo for more taxation control unacceptable? 3. They can't "take away" the Scottish Parliament's tax powers "whenever they like". Any amendment to the Scotland Act requires a Sewel Motion by way of consent from Holyrood and if they tried to do it by Order in Council that would require Holyrood consent too. A cut in Scotlands block grant coinciding with increased revenue raising, will inevitably mean we will be paying higher taxes to fund the same services. It is a con!! Shame on anyone who falls for it. I don't know was it ? Quick google. The total cost was 110 million. 77 million was paid by Sports England. The rest by Manchester city council. Sports England is a treasury and lottery funded agency. So yes. We did pay a share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Out of interest, how is the Commonwealth Games being funded? As a Falkirkian, am I paying for any of it? Out of Interest how many UK taxpayers will be paying towards the CG? How much Lottery funding? The Scottish consequential for the Olympics could have paid for the CG twice over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Sports England is a treasury and lottery funded agency. So yes. We did pay a share. Well knock me down with a feather! Who would have imagined it, Scotland paying towards English based sporting events twice in a decade. ETA: Is it any wonder we are too poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 A cut in Scotlands block grant coinciding with increased revenue raising, will inevitably mean we will be paying higher taxes to fund the same services. It is a con!! Shame on anyone who falls for it. No it doesn't. Our UK income tax rate has been cut to reflect the introduction of the Scottish rate of income tax. Quick google. The total cost was 110 million. 77 million was paid by Sports England. The rest by Manchester city council. Sports England is a treasury and lottery funded agency. So yes. We did pay a share. The funds allocated to Sports England are Barnettable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 No it doesn't. Our UK income tax rate has been cut to reflect the introduction of the Scottish rate of income tax. The funds allocated to Sports England are Barnettable! Who has control on the Barnet? Who has a say on any changes made to said Barnet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Who has control on the Barnet? Who has a say on any changes made to said Barnet? Are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change or abolish the Barnett formula, something it hasn't done since before devolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change or abolish the Barnett formula, something it hasn't done since before devolution? I wouldnt dream of such a thing. Bet you with all your powers of ignoreing such things would find it difficult to find even one Mp that would allow themselfs to be quoted saying such a thing to any of the msm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Out of Interest how many UK taxpayers will be paying towards the CG? How much Lottery funding? The Scottish consequential for the Olympics could have paid for the CG twice over. If the Games funding is an issue then take it up with the politicians who are spending all our money on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 No it doesn't. Our UK income tax rate has been cut to reflect the introduction of the Scottish rate of income tax. The funds allocated to Sports England are Barnettable! 1) Yes it is. I think it inconceivable we will pay lower taxes than the rest of the UK, and cutting the Scottish rate, to 10p to then allow the SP to top up is a recipe for admin chaos. Better to have all revenue raised in Scotland. Incidentally has it been finalised how they are going to proportionately reduce the Scottish block grant? 2) We still paid a share to Sports England, the lottery and the treasury, that in turn funded the Manchester games. Are we in a position to say what we got back through Barnett for Manchester, let alone the Olympics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 1) Yes it is. I think it inconceivable we will pay lower taxes than the rest of the UK, and cutting the Scottish rate, to 10p to then allow the SP to top up is a recipe for admin chaos. Better to have all revenue raised in Scotland. Incidentally has it been finalised how they are going to proportionately reduce the Scottish block grant? No. It isn't. The Scottish Government has the choice whether to levy a lower rate of overall income tax or a higher one, and to be left either with less or more income tax to spend on goods and services as a result. The cut in the Barnett formula coming with the Scottish rate of income tax is anchored to ensure that Scotland gets the same to spend if it sets it at 10p as it would have gotten before had it exercised no tax powers. This is in accordance with the no detriment principles that the Scottish Government signed off on before the Scotland Act 2012 was sent for Royal Assent. 2) We still paid a share to Sports England, the lottery and the treasury, that in turn funded the Manchester games. Are we in a position to say what we got back through Barnett for Manchester, let alone the Olympics? *sigh* We didn't "pay a share to Sports England" any more than English taxpayers "paid a share" of the Holyrood budget. You clearly don't understand how Barnett works. Lamentable, given there are *ACTUAL* problems with the Barnett formula that those on all sides should probably be critical of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 So, all the BT supporting parties are now saying ''We can have best of both worlds, the security and economic strength of being part of The UK and extra powers for the devolved Scottish parliament''. What fkg extra powers? they can't agree on the price of a penny sweetie ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 So, all the BT supporting parties are now saying ''We can have best of both worlds, the security and economic strength of being part of The UK and extra powers for the devolved Scottish parliament''. What fkg extra powers? they can't agree on the price of a penny sweetie ffs. 4 times "call me dave "has been up to jockoland and said extra powers and has never mentioned what they will be Basically full of crap And for those discussing barnett for sports events i give you h2s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirez Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 So, all the BT supporting parties are now saying ''We can have best of both worlds, the security and economic strength of being part of The UK and extra powers for the devolved Scottish parliament''. What fkg extra powers? they can't agree on the price of a penny sweetie ffs. A more thoughtful person than Alistair Carmichael might wonder why it is, if the union is the wondrous thing that he supposes, that it can only survive with the promise - or pretence - of drastic reform. http://peterabell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/an-unacceptable-sacrifice.html well worth a read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 4 times "call me dave "has been up to jockoland and said extra powers and has never mentioned what they will be Basically full of crap And for those discussing barnett for sports events i give you h2s or crossrail or Terminal 5. Still waiting to see the Barnett consequentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Latest scare story. Children's clothes will cost more in an independent children, mothers will have to travel south to buy kids clothes http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/275715-childrens-clothes-will-cost-more-if-scotland-lose-uk-tax-opt-out/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbi Williams Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 How do extreme yes voters know what's a scare story and what's a genuine negative to independence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.